Friday, June 10, 2016

Darwinism and its Mongoloid Mutations Refuted

I've been wanting to get this info up, so finally, here it is
An excellent read from Jay Dyer @ Jay's Analysis.
My personal take on Darwin ? Just another elitist pushing another elitist agenda.
Keep an open mind, please. Read the whole piece entirely. I printed it up for ease of reading because, believe it or not, I hate reading at the computer. Truly!

"There are numerous misunderstandings surrounding the subjects of Genesis, creation, evolution, science and theology, which muddy the primordial goo even further than it already was (if only it was real!).  From reliance on naïve positivism and empiricism to assumptions and equivocations over terms, the standard debates on these issues are often ill-served by both sides, including “Creationists” (and/or Intelligent Design proponents), generally due to bad philosophy.  The same is true for the opponents of Creation, who almost never have a background in the philosophy science, which looks at the logos – the mechanics and workings – of the very thing they propose to practice and defend.  The worst side of this matter is undoubtedly the Darwinian side, which I will argue is the most irrational and incoherent of all, and that rather than a position that need be taken seriously and conciliated or reconciled to theology, ought to be dispensed with as preposterous.   The purpose of this essay is, in part, to respond to a recent defense of “Theistic Evolution,” as well as to shed light on more fundamental, presuppositional problems in this often misguided debate (with more to follow in the future).
The Evolution of Darwinian Evolution and Anti-Epistemological Self-Negation
The most misunderstood and simultaneously most important factor to grasp is how presuppositions and paradigms function as templates to interpret “facts.”  An epistemological mistake that has become the entrenched norm since the Enlightenment’s tabula rasa is the presumption there are “brute facts” that come un-interpreted, outside of some contextual framework or worldview.  In the older paradigm, which retained a more classical anthropology where man was seen as a created being, man was equipped with a host of faculties from God, endowing him with the ability to will, act, learn and modify his environment.  This holistic view was grounded in a wide-ranging metaphysical anthropology inherited primarily from the Eastern Christian Tradition and the Christology of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, but also with terminological and conceptual insights and analogies from the Greek philosophical tradition.
The revolutions of the Enlightenment period repositioned man in a vast, mechanistic, determined cosmos of flux and brute “causality” in which he sought to become the ultimate agent and source of meaning itself.   Western Establishment science eventually came to reflect this revolution in thought by offering a new paradigm of the natural sciences, where man was now the chance product of endless aeons of chaos and flux.  The crucial point to keep in mind for our discussion is the fact that the purely “naturalistic” framework for understanding the world was promulgated with an astounding degree of propaganda and top-down dogmatism, notably from the Royal Society.  Evolutionary naturalism, as we will explore, is undoubtedly and certainly a conspiracy, and not at all a “neutral” theory of “open scientific inquiry,” as it pretends to be.
It is this notion of scientific and epistemic “neutrality” which must first be examined and dispensed with first.  Presuming to interpret the phenomena of experience without a contextual framework or schema within one’s lexicon of linguistic symbols becomes self-evident upon reflection, yet mysteriously eluded so many of the empiricists of the last few centuries precisely because it contradicted their dogma of tabula rasa.  Ironically, this is already an older, outdated philosophy of perception that perfectly mirrored the zeitgeist of a Hume, Kant or Locke.  For those studied in modern philosophy of science, phenomenology and traditions counter to the Darwinian ethos, there are numerous indicators which show the “facts” of our experience are rather parts of a network of signs and symbols, as well as being situated  within a “web” or our wider or more foundational beliefs and assumptions about the world.
The earthworm, for example, was famously hailed by Darwin himself, as well as many of his disciples today, to be the most important “evolutionary appearance” prior to the supposed “dawn of man.”  Let’s take the earthworm as an example of how science actually functions on the ground, and consider what philosophical and perceptual truths emerge that are, in fact prior to the actual praxis of the scientific method. The earthworm  investigated in the lab is the earthworm as known, experienced and interpreted by the individual scientist, given his inner framework of past experiences, accumulated knowledge and present “direct” experiences with the slimy dirt-dweller, all of which form an interpretation of the object before him in his lab.  Upon reflection, it should be self-evident that the mechanics of how this creature is understood will be informed intuitively by the mind of the scientist’s conceptions concerning it.  In other words, the earthworm does not spontaneously generate its own, wholly new meaning to the fresh mind’s eye, nor does a scientific blank slate of perception simply record quantitative “facts” about the object, add them all up and produce an earthworm calculus for all such “species.”
This earthworm did not appear out of a vacuum with an instruction manual, nor does the mere quantification of its length, weight, diet, etc. afford the scientist all possible earthworm gnosis.  While these points seem obvious to us as we read and ponder the actual actions of perceiving phenomena in any given scientific lab, this naïve empiricism is still the normative approach and presupposition for mainstream science!  This, in fact, is why modern science tends to avoid the questions of philosophy of science, relegating them to the dustbin, along with medieval metaphysics and angels because it pretends they are unanswerable.  However, they are not unanswerable, but rather the answers and explanations for such questions are not what mainstream science wants to hear.
"I'm now certain from carbon tasting this earthworm has expired and is at least 64 million years old.
“I’m now certain from carbon tasting this earthworm has expired and is at least 64 million years old

Why this is so is obvious, as it immediately brings metaphysics back into the picture, but not only metaphysics, it immediately shows the inescapable need for, and usage of, invariant, immaterial, conceptual realities (such as laws of logic, mathematics, etc.), which are not coherent in most paradigms of secular and naturalistic materialistic science.  While I am not advocating Husserl’s notion of “bracketing,” Husserl certainly showed the scientific method itself operates on principles of logic, inference, coherence and regularity that are not empirically knowable or verifiable, in his Logical Investigations.  For example, the principle of induction, upon which all of science is founded, cannot be known of verified empirically.
That the future will be like the past, as Hume consistently showed, cannot be known by past or present empirical observations without begging the question or being circular.  In a Christian context, of course, we have a reason for believing the future will be like the past and nature will function with regularity, known as the Providence of God.  While seemingly laughable and jeered at by modern self-negating man, this is perfectly coherent, if the kind of God professed exists, yet utterly incoherent in the worldview professed by the naturalist, and especially the naïve empiricist naturalist (which is the majority of that camp to this day).  Indeed, that scientists are so ignorant of philosophy – and by extension logic – is really a folly to their own detriment (and a source of most of this nonsense).
As philosopher of science Michael Polanyi commented:
“To say that the discovery of objective truth in science consists in the apprehension of a rationality which commands our respect and arouses our contemplative admiration, that such discovery, while using the experience of our senses as clues, transcends this experience by embracing the vision of a reality beyond the impression of our senses, a vision which speaks for itself in guiding us to an even deeper understanding of reality-such an account of scientific procedure would be generally shrugged aside as out-dated Platonism: a piece of mystery-mongering unworthy of an enlightened age. Yet it is precisely on this conception of objectivity that I wish to insist in.” (Personal Knowledge, p. 5-6)
Fraudulent drawings- who knew!

 Haeckel’s invented “Moneron.”

 Ernst Haeckel’s fake drawings, altered to show different embryos in stages of development, as published by him in Anthropogenie, in Germany, 1874.

 Like I said, much, much more to read at Jay's so scoot over and have a read

And at the very end of this informative, enlightening and thought provoking piece - Problems with Evolution are presented- Give it a listen

Then share some thoughts- Speaking for myself, me being the only person I can speak for, the whole article  and all linked info was extremely interesting.


  1. I also had a post on turkey but spent too much time chatting in the previous post- stay tuned!


    Who dunnit? KurdISHIS, ISIL, IDF, PKK, USA? All terrorists, they.

    1. the ISIL terrorists were dressed in the uniform of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces

      that little quote tells me all I need to know


    2. And the band plays on. KurdiShiS are armed and supported by? A nefarious game is being played behind locked doors. Is any of it as it appears or as we are being led to believe. Are the antagonists truly antagonists? Events are making it harder to know with any sort of certainty.

  3. FYI

    The existing scientific theory of cows turning into whales looks like this >

  4. I guess a good question on the whale thing would be why do whales have finger bones in their flippers and why do they have vestiges of former leg-like bone things floating around that are virtually useless?

    There must be a reason but then again I'm not a scientist ;)

  5. Here's another oddity that science is having a difficult time explaining. NASA recently said that strange sounds were heard and recorded by several Apollo missions on the far side of the moon.

    This is at PHYS.ORG which is a very serious physics website.

    Sounds like the strange sounds heard around the world that news agencies are reporting for the last 7 years. Loud booms that shake houses like earthquakes and "loud trumpet sounds like the second coming of Jesus Christ". WOW! FIVE MILLION views!!!

    This is one from CTV News in North Battleford Saskatchewan.

    But they are happening literally everywhere. The US China Russia Brazil South Africa even Ottawa!

    1. Bunch of Monkeys:

      so you read the entire article, checked all the links and don't have anything to say in that regard then?
      I don't know. that's what it seems?

    2. Bunch of MonkeysJune 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM

      I've already told you what is happening. Several times.

      You just refuse to listen and do your own research to either confirm or deny because you already know 'the truth'... and this simply doesn't fit into that particular paradigm or makes you feel uncomfortable so you just consciously or subconsciously choose to walk away from it. We all do that to some extent. Perhaps Kant was right after all.

      So ALL AROUND THE WORLD hmmm... imagine that. You would think that the great military powers of the planet might be curious and want to assess the danger to their nation's security by whatever this phenomenon is... but alas that is simply not to be.

      Not the great and powerful NATO and not even Russia or China. Gee wonder why? Could they ALL be controlled by the Globalist bankers? Nah... that's just more stupid conspiracy theory speculation isn't it? ;)

      Russia >

      Ukraine >

      China >

      Brazil >

      Some great sound diversity here >>>

      Works great for creating clouds and storms too ! Scariest one here in Finland! Woooo woooo!!! >

      Yes Penny I know what it is and how they do it. Tesla was not a raving lunatic after all. It's called "Project Bluebeam" and it's real. Give me a 100-1,000kw power supply and about half a million bucks to fabricate the giant antenna out of aluminum tubes and the ionosphere/sodium layer is your playground. The mobile units seem to create about a 50km diameter sound and (yup)light and cloud/storm and energy beam show back here on terra firma. What the hardwired units can do is unimaginable even to me. Except without a license it would be illegal and they would never give me one so I won't do it. ;)

    3. Bunch of MonkeysJune 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM

      BTW... The evidence of a coordinated global campaign is everywhere and it's massive except to the blind. It's been 'quietly' placed there so when the big NWO global SHAKE&BOOM happens sometime between June 20th, Aug 14th and October 3rd 2016... and then trumpets start sounding all at once everywhere!... so when everyone starts searching the internet for information they will see that it has been there all along. ALL ALONG... fancy that!

      Batshit crazy huh? That's what I thought too. Wakey wakey girl! It's real and it's staring you in the face.

      And NASA just helped to explain things by telling you that astronauts were hearing music on the far side of the moon if you can believe that. Me? Not so much.

      Gee... and all these astronauts talking about 'extra terrestrial' encounters right on cue over the past few years... Looney Tunes for sure but why so much press in the Globalists disinfo filled MSM when these guys are clearly nuts?

      So depopulation of the planet by 90% to 500 million here we go. BB'ers say 50 million... I say "Sure... why not?" My concerns were merely over their timetable of implementation anyway.

      Massive decreases in living standards for the poorest due to weaning the planet off of cheap and plentiful energy. Mother earth will be so happy!

      Police and intelligence agencies here to protect us (them actually) from all threats foreign and domestic... don't understand that they have no role in a future of video cams everywhere since a chipped population will result in crime falling to nothing as we are all observed 24/7 to keep us safe from terrorists.

      Trump or Hillary will almost certainly outsource expensive and no longer affordable police agencies by then to Globalist corporations. They will hire the few workers needed to keep the sheep in line from offshore security companies in Mexico or China.

      But don't worry Penny... the lights will come on shortly.

      You don't really have a choice. Buy the Kabuki tickets if you want.

    4. Hmmm . . . Ad Hominems delivered with an air of superiority and disdain. Where have I come across this before?

    5. Bunch of MonkeysJune 11, 2016 at 4:49 PM

      Hey... here's something else that's really neat that you probably don't want to know about!

      Fata Morganas or MIRAGES as they are more commonly called occur when light coming from far away objects is bent as it passes through layers of air with contrasting densities due to temperature differentials.

      The science is simple and any student in a grade 10 Physics class knows how it works.

      Here's some pictures to showing how these phenomenon present themselves...

      Nice one in the desert here >

      Nice one of ship on the ocean here >

      Great one showing vertical exaggeration of ship here >

      I think that Wikipedia does the explanation justice so let's go to Wiki...

      Look at the picture and read the following words below the images carefully and several times over if you have the time...

      "A 19th-century book illustration, showing enlarged superior mirages. Actual mirages can never be so far above the horizon, and a superior mirage can never increase the length of an object as shown on the right."

      SO... In summation of established science the mirages can:

      1) NOT appear much above the horizon
      2) NOT increase the LENGTH of the object just height
      3) CAN be right side up, upside down or both

      Simple right? Good. Now watch this from China... it's from the Telegraph so you know it's legit! >

      Wow! City in the Sky!

      Original video here >

      Thank goodness the expert scientists at National Geographic take the time to explain what you just saw for you! You might not know what to think otherwise! Turns out it was just a far away city magnified in TWO dimensions way above the horizon.

      So the culprit was just the weather folks!

      Now THAT'S a great whale tale!


    6. Bunch of Monkeys-

      `It's been 'quietly' placed there so when the big NWO global SHAKE&BOOM happens sometime between June 20th, Aug 14th and October 3rd 2016...

      Since I don`t really have an understanding of what you're going on and on about- I hope that you will keep your given dates in mind, just in case, there is no big kaboom- what ever that is exactly supposed to be?

    7. james :'Hmmm . . . Ad Hominems delivered with an air of superiority and disdain. Where have I come across this before?"

      Sigh... Until all this BoM has been a very informative participant- I don't know?

    8. and james? if you have time read Jay's piece
      It seriously had me thinking..
      Love to read your thoughts :)

    9. Hi Penny,

      Jay's article is very thought provoking and he says a lot of things that I agree with (so it must be good! :) ). It is, however, aimed at students of theology (hence, the obscure references and undefined terms such as “nous”). I think he needed to make it a little more accessible given he is aiming at a more general audience. But it is still an engaging article.

      Jay, knowingly or unknowingly, sets his argument out as an Hegelian Dialectic and it is easiest to summarize it using that format. His position on the Orthodox Church is his “thesis”; the Darwinian Evolutionary argument is presented as the “antithesis” with the Catholic Church's “Theistic Evolution” shown as the “synthesis” or the compromise between the two other propositions. The Theistic Evolution theory appears at first glance to be closer to the Orthodox position but a closer look reveals it indistinguishable philosophically from Darwinian Evolution.

      You asked for my opinion so I'll say I agree with Jays analysis(!) of the Darwinians and of the Jesuitical Theistic Evolution. These are both exercises in 'arguing the arbitrary'. Something is presented at first as possible and upon repetition becomes probable. In time it becomes 'something that all reasonable/sensible/intelligent/etc people agree on'. Soon after that it becomes dogma and further discussion is shut down. The answer to any proposition that is 'arguing the arbitrary' is to challenge the proponents to 'make your case' and subject their answer to rigorous logic.

      As Jay points out, there are too many holes in the two positions I mentioned for it to hold any 'logical water'. That leaves Jay's position of support for the Orthodox view. It is a common error to assume that the one remaining alternative (of the alternatives presented) that has not been debunked must necessarily be the truth and that error applies here. Orthodoxy has it's own problems; problems it shares with Catholicism.

      Jay correctly points out that a body of knowledge must be internally consistent to be considered to be true. The trouble for both branches of Christianity is that they are founded on scriptures that are demonstrably internally inconsistent. Douglas Reed quotes many biblical scholars, including israeli ones, as believing that the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, were written as a job lot around the fifth century BC. It was written by a bunch of Levitical priests. If these were the original writers, then they were also a bunch of psychopaths because the God they wrote about is clearly a psychopath with his lust of the genocide of his own creatures (which include children, even infants).
      The evidence is in the writing itself.

      This genocidal God is also inconsistent with the Jesus of the New Testament who is portrayed as not only God but as having the same nature as God the Father who is the God described in the Old Testament. We have an unbridgable credibility gap here. If that isn't enough, we have the problem of Apostolic Succession from the first Bishop of Rome whereby the Catholic Church and, as far as I know, the Orthodox churches claim their legitimacy to be the heirs of Jesus' teachings.

      The claim is that Jesus appointed Peter as the head of his church. Fr Malachi Martin, the one-time professor of history at the Pontifical Institute at the Vatican, and who had full access to the Vatican Archives, gave a list of all the popes in his book, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church”. Peter, the claimed first bishop of Rome (the first pope) is not on that list. So no Apostolic Succession.

      Peter was not even the head of the church in Jerusalem. Jesus' brother, James the Just was. The 'apostle' Paul acknowleges that in his epistle to the Galations. So the authority that the Orthodox church, which Jay's argument relies on, is not there.

      (Cont below)

    10. There is one argument that the Orthodox church makes, according to Jay, for the existence of God that I personally agree with, If I've read him right. And that is the “immanence” of God and the “immanence” of his energy in creation. But this understanding was also held in common with tribal peoples throughout (pre)history.

      I propose that this 'presence of God' is no longer self-evident because we live in a psychopathic culture and we necessarily pick up psychopathic attitudes and psychopathy precludes seeing (as self-evident) the divine in the miracle of life that surrounds us at every turn.

      I think this is also one of the unacknowledged reasons the Catholic Church, having banned teaching of God's immanent energy, has been so intent on the genocide of native peoples around the world down through the centuries.

      Anyway, Pen . . . these are the points in Jay's fascinating article that stood out for me. It bears rereading and one could spend days tracking down refs and terms and the associated thoughts and, dare I say, dogmas, that attend them.

      Oh, I really enjoyed the youtube interview with David Berlinski. Lots of good points!

    11. Thanks for that james, it literally took me days to read the article- reading some parts over and over- I checked most, but, not all of the external links
      listened to the you tube twice-

      a rather time consuming exercise, BUT, I really enjoyed the article and all the thinking that surrounded digesting it-

      glad you found it equally as good :)

  6. Pen, part 1 of my reply was published and then disappeared. it is probably in your spam file

  7. I thought I'd wait a bit until the passing herds went by before weighing in with more than just 2 brief comments about what I think of Berlinski's 'work'. This can be a touchy subject for those requiring some sort of self confirming "spiritual intervention" to explain the wonders of life due to a pre-existing condition known as religious indoctrination.

    Man is a spiritual being in perpetual search for meaning. I am no exception to this rule and could point you in what I believe to be the right direction but it's probably not going to be what you want it to be so unless you say otherwise I'll spare you and me both the time. It involves no intelligent design gods who we haven't seen in thousands of years (if ever), who created the world in 6 days but are always a little short on Sunday, or are complete sociopaths as are the gods (yes plural) found in the ancient Hebrew texts known as the Torah aka Bible.

    The simple problem with ascribing everything that occurs in the universe to god (or intelligent design) is that there is no mechanism to explain where god (or intelligent design) came from. It simply moves the genesis problem to another location where it still has to be answered. Same for life on earth descending from extra terrestrial life btw. I love the "life came from outer space" crowd they are both right and (probably) wrong. It did actually since we are all composed form the ashes of ancient supernovae. That much we know and can prove is a fact. But that handles only the PHYSICAL element of the equation and we all know that there is far more out there than that. Plus we don't even understand the complete physical part yet.

    Religion, (latin derivative = "to bind" not "to open"), after all is a 'filter', a potential 'prison of the mind' but only in other peoples religions as we all know ;). Religion in any form will stop any practitioner from being able to examine information in an unbiased fashion, which is essential if you are going to have any chance of finding 'truth'.

    I had to study paleontology in order to complete my degree in geology so I am very familiar with the concept known as evolution. Unless someone has found where David explains how whales today have vestige limbs from INTELLIGENT DESIGN then I am forced to consider him both a quack and a rhetorical master charlaton.

    I also understand that quite a bit of what is taught in university is complete nonsense, often intended to keep one from discovering truth. Almost always through the mechanisms of well developed rhetorical arguments devoid of substance, not logic. It sounds pleasant and authoritative to the ear however. Just like the misrepresented arguments David made.

    Proposing that science cannot explain how "Cows turn into whales" should not have gotten past any thinking persons radar. I repeat ANY THINKING PERSONS RADAR.

    Let's not even get into the evolution of horses whoise evolution is as clear as a bell in the fossil record.

    As for evolution not being witnessed? This guy is a LIAR!!!

    Darwin's observations of moths turning black over time due to the black soot of the early industrial age in London is a case in point. White moths of the species stood out and were more likely to be eaten by predators so black moths of the same species flourished and over time the entire species became black. After a hundred years of cleaner air the recessive gene came back and is now once again dominant. The white moth has returned! It's an excellent article you can read here but be advised that God doesn't want you to read it.>

    He's a con man in my books. Not that his association with right wing globalist slimeball Ben Stein helps.


    1. "The peppered moth, Biston betularia, was originally white with speckles, hence its name, which allowed it to rest on lichen-covered trees and walls without being spotted by birds.

      But as soot belched out by factory chimneys began to coat industrial areas of Britain, killing off pollution-sensitive lichen, a black variety began to outnumber its pale cousin in towns and cities as it was better at hiding from predators."

      The way that it is written we are talking about two related species

      One able to avoid predation because of it's colouring better then another-

      "Gradually, more of the darker moths survived long enough to breed as they were now better disguised, and their paler cousins fell victim to predators"

      The article going further does not claim to be about evolution- rather it's about natural selection
      The lighter one being eaten more often enabled the darker one to thrive

      This might have more to do with epigenetics- Darwin was not enthused about that theory, I believe?

      Anyway to each their own

    2. Hark! Is that the sound of the hooves of the "passing herds"?

      Well said, Penny.

    3. Penny,

      My views and beliefs pretty much mirrored yours for 7 of the last 8 years or so. Last year not so much. We basically agree on everything other than the minor (all considered) issue of evolution vs. intelligent design (not a big deal really since it's such an amazing universe anyway), but most importantly, whether or not the globalist bankers, who took control of the planet centuries ago have lost control of both their immense fortunes and their immense political influence in the interim so that we now we find ourselves lurching rudderless into a nuclear war (October) that somehow they can't or won't stop even though they own most of the planet's soon to be irradiated assets. Not believable and easily proven to be false if you set aside a small amount of time (and temporarily suspend existing belief filters long enough) to investigate.

      Once you understand the argument that it's just Kabuki Theater you are watching for future 'historians' to analyze (as George Bush said) then everything you witness from here on in will make a great deal more sense.

      Back to whales and evolution vs. intelligent design.
      (Epigenetics is fascinating btw... and David includes several of Darwin own criticisms of his theory... most of which have been answered btw...)

      Random (or not ;) mutation and natural selection drives evolution.


      "If emergence of life was not the result of a process of natural selection through random mutation, then it might be that it was the result of a non-random process involving design which would suggest a designer (God). In fact, it is clear that there is no design. On the contrary, there many instances of imperfection. "

      The whaling industry harvested vast quantities of whales over the years. Fortunately these barbaric practices have pretty much ended. From those animals harvested however there were many observation of whales not just having the internal hip and leg bones but actual protruding limbs covered with flesh and blubber. Explaining this inconvenient truth in absence of evolutionary/genetic theory is going to be a major challenge for the intelligent design squad.

      This report from a humpback whale slaughtered off the coast of Vancouver Island back in 1919 is such a case. The photographic evidence is what I would consider to be confirmation of the theory of evolution. Intelligent design? Not so apparent to me but then again I have been wrong before ;)

      Picture of the limb bones >

      Full 1921 report >

      Any thoughts on the alleged 'vestige limbs'?

      If you are truly in doubt and want to take a more comprehensive look at the evidence for the evolution of several plant and animal species just say so. The fossil record as incomplete as it may be is in many instances (think about the rare conditions required to preserve soft bodied organisms and others... low oxygen no scavenger environment in marine shales etc. to ancient volcanic ash in Olduvai gorge... it's amazing the record is as complete as it is in many cases.)

    4. P.S. No need to post them Penny, just have a look see in the "holding tank" from time to time or things will get confusing for the readers OK? :)

      Now check out those Putin links because he's NOT who you think he is.

      Nope! ;)

    5. PPS: You were up to nearly 2,500-3,000 daily page views a couple of days ago. If the dam comes down your site will most assuredly crash. ;)

      Too bad we don't see eye to eye on the biggest point yet (we will), love what you do all the same!


    6. bad monkey: I think you've made some assumptions about just what I believe-

      Particularly about Putin- but it's not a debate I care to get into- I'll sum it up quickly

      I have no heroes in the political classes- Not a one

      As for evolution- it's a theory, it's never been proven and it reeks of an elitist agenda

      Reducing humanity to "just another animal"
      which enables the elites to use and abuse us

      Until evolution is proven- it will remain just a theory- and an unproven one at that.

      Until such a time as it is proven I will keep an open mind

  8. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

    Evolution claims to explain "the origin of the species" but evolutionists have not made their case convincingly. The onus of proof is upon them because they are making the claim. Pointing to evidence here and there is supportive of their claim but not proof of it.

    Scientists can manipulate life but not create it. So they are no closer to demonstrating the source of life than I am.

    The whale bones may be evidence of something but is it evidence of the origin of the species - all life, as their theory claims? Clearly not. Till that day, we do not have a theory of evolution but an hypothesis of evolution.

    To shout down and shut out questioning of this hypothesis marks the evolution movement as a political movement and not a scientific movement.

    Clearly, the acceptance of this hypothesis of evolution is very important to the people with the money. Why? That's the real question here.

    1. Hi james

      thanks for the movie link- It's appears to be a must watch

      "Clearly, the acceptance of this hypothesis of evolution is very important to the people with the money. Why? That's the real question here"

      That is the real question, why are the elites so vested in pushing this hypothesis- I have a number of thoughts regarding that but it will take to much time to get into...